In a recent ruling, Malaysia's top court invalidated 16 Shariah-based state laws, citing their encroachment on federal authority. The decision has sparked debates and debates as it raises concerns about the potential impact on religious courts across the country. The 8-1 ruling by the nine-member Federal Court panel targeted the laws enforced by the opposition-run Kelantan state government, which covered a range of offenses including sodomy, sexual harassment, incest, cross-dressing, and giving false evidence.
The court's reasoning behind the ruling was that these matters are already covered by Malaysian federal laws, therefore making it unconstitutional for the state to legislate on these topics independently. Malaysia's legal system follows a dual-track approach, where Shariah law governs personal and family matters for Muslims, while civil laws apply to the general population. This dual-track system reflects the diverse makeup of Malaysia, with ethnic Malays, who are recognized as Muslims under Malaysian law, constituting two-thirds of the population, while substantial Chinese and Indian minority groups contribute to the remaining population.
The court case challenging these state laws was initiated in 2020 by two Muslim women from Kelantan, a predominantly Muslim state in the northeastern region of Malaysia. Kelantan has been governed by the conservative Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) since 1990, and the ruling has sparked strong reactions from supporters of the party. Hundreds of PAS supporters gathered outside the court building, expressing their disappointment and calling for the protection of Shariah laws.
The secretary-general of PAS, Takiyuddin Hassan, expressed his discontent with the court ruling, referring to it as a 'black Friday' for Islamic Shariah laws. He also raised concerns that the ruling might have wider implications for Shariah laws in other states, potentially putting them at risk. PAS is a member of the opposition bloc and is the largest party in Parliament, governing four out of Malaysia's 13 states. The party has consistently advocated for the implementation of strict Islamic legal norms, including a criminal code known as hudud, which includes severe penalties such as amputations for theft and stoning to death for adultery. However, these proposals have been blocked by the federal government.
The ruling presents a challenge for Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, who is currently seeking to garner support from the Malay community after assuming office following the 2022 general election. Anwar has countered PAS's assertion that the ruling was an attack on Shariah laws, emphasizing that the core issue is about state jurisdiction and cautioning against unnecessary politicization.
Following the ruling, Mohamad Na'im Mokhtar, the minister in charge of religious affairs, sought to reassure the Muslim community that the position of Shariah courts would not be affected. He urged Muslims to remain calm and assured that the government would carefully study the ruling. Mokhtar also affirmed that ongoing efforts to bolster and empower Shariah courts would continue.
The court's decision to invalidate the Shariah-based state laws highlights the complexities of Malaysia's legal system and the delicate balance between state and federal jurisdictions. It also underscores the ongoing tensions surrounding the role of Shariah law and its compatibility with modern legal frameworks and human rights principles. As Malaysia navigates these complexities, it is crucial to ensure that the rights and interests of all Malaysians are taken into account, while upholding the principles of justice, equality, and the rule of law.
